A woman who favors legal abortion has asked, "If women are denied access to
abortion, who will pay for all those unwanted children?"

If we were having this debate before we legalized abortion, it could be legitimately
argued that abortion might reduce the number of unwanted children. However, that's not the
case. We are having this debate after over twenty years of experience with the horror of
abortion. We're not predicting future results, but living with past ones.

Since abortion was legalized, teen pregnancy has skyrocketed. The number of children
living in poverty has steadily grown. More and more children are living in single-parent
households. Every misery that women and children can be forced to live under has gotten
worse.

Those whose goal is to protect the multi-billion-dollar abortion industry want people
to believe that ending abortion will worsen a problem that legalizing abortion helped to
create. I think the fact that they want to blame us for their failures shows exactly how
deceitful they are. It's the big-lie theory: The bigger lie you tell, and the more often
you tell it, the more people will believe it.

Letter 108

Pro-abortion extremists often ask, "If women are denied access to abortion, who
will pay for all those unwanted children?"

You know, the pro-abortionists have had over 20 years to weed out the people they don't
want. And no one can argue that they've been stingy in handing out death sentences.
They've killed over 30 million babies, and are still screaming that there are too many
unwanted babies. Meanwhile, we have more criminals than ever, more gang members, more
welfare moms, and more drug addicts. In fact, there isn't a single class of people
abortion was supposed to eliminate that hasn't grown in the past 20 years.

Did it ever occur to these rabid abortion fanatics that maybe--just maybe--all their
screaming about how poor people ought to be killed because they're unwanted has
contributed to the growing hostility in this country? That maybe hearing from birth that
you are unwanted, useless, and should have been killed in the womb makes you lash out?

Instead of killing children, maybe we should re-examine this whole idea of
"unwantedness" and learn to be more welcoming and accepting.

Letter 109

Pro-abortion extremists sometimes say, "If women are denied access to abortion,
who will pay for all those unwanted children?"

Isn't it sad that we live at a time when there are people willing to tell mothers that
an unplanned pregnancy always produces an unwanted baby? It's like the kid who tells his
little brother that chocolate cake is made of mud--not to spare the brother the cake, but
to get it for himself. Abortion fanatics need to convince the woman that her unplanned
baby will ruin her life and that she'll never love it; that way she'll buy an abortion.
Conversely, every time a mother decides she does want her baby, or that she's going to
place it with a loving adoptive family who wants it, the pro-choicers lose.

This whole "unwanted child" mentality is a fraud perpetrated by the abortion
industry to create a demand for their product.

Letter 110

Abortion opponents often argue, "If women are denied access to abortion, who will
pay for all those unwanted children?"

Inane arguments like this are a major contributor to the anger felt by true feminists
toward those people who masquerade as feminists to protect the abortion industry. Taking
this kind of position not only makes women look hypocritical, but it gives credence to the
stereotype that women are self-centered and irrational. This whole issue is just one more
reason why the historic feminist position on abortion has always been--and will always
be--pro-life, not pro-abortion. The legitimate feminist knows better than to claim that
her value is not based on a man wanting her, while maintaining that her child's value is
based on whether she wants him. As Suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton said, "When we
consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat
our children as property to be disposed of as we wish."

Letter 111

Advocates of legal abortion have asked, "If women are denied access to abortion,
who will pay for all those unwanted children?"

Has anybody but me noticed that we never had all this talk about hoards of
"unwanted" children until these rabid abortion enthusiasts came on the scene?
The truth is, the abortion industry created the "disease of unwantedness" in
order to have a market for their product.

How many baby boomers were planned? I would guess that very few of us were. I dare say
a lot of abortion advocates owe their lives to the fact that their own mothers weren't
bombarded with this "every child a wanted child" nonsense.

It is the attitude of the woman, and the people around her, that makes an
"unwanted" child. There is no "unwantedness" gene. There is nothing in
that baby that makes him or her an unwanted or unwantable human being. In fact, even
though his mother may have been brainwashed into not wanting him, there are millions of
adoptive families that want him very much.

It's about time we dropped this whole crusade to kill off the "unwanted"
children. Civilized societies don't kill people just because someone else doesn't want
them. Live and let live.

Letter 112

Pro-abortion extremists have often asked, "If women are denied access to abortion,
who will pay for all those unwanted children?"

I might have been able to respect the question if an abortion advocate had asked it 25
years ago. Back then, there was a theory that abortion would eliminate, or at least
reduce, unintended pregnancy. But by the early 1970s, the pro-choice community knew
better. Abortion guru Christopher Tietze pointed out that women who aborted had more
pregnancies than women who did not. The Population Council published a study showing that
easy access to abortion led to irresponsible sexual behavior. Irresponsible sexual
behavior leads to unintended pregnancies. This is not theory. This is fact--a fact that
the pro-choicers may admit among themselves but dare not speak in public.

What abortion leads to is not wanted and loved children. It leads to more and more
unintended pregnancies, more abortions, more heartbreak. We're not predicting future
results, but living with past ones.

Thirty-two million dead babies haven't made our families stronger, or our children more
secure. They have done the opposite. It's time we learned from experience and ended this
grotesque practice.

Letter 265

Pro-choicers have said that pro-lifers "never
give a thought to the children who will be abused if women lose the right to bear only
loved and wanted children."

Even if one is able to ignore the obvious--that
abortion is child abuse of the worst kind--there is another major flaw in this line of
"reasoning." Doesn't it seem odd that we would try to eliminate a crime by
killing its potential victims? One might just as well eliminate wife-beating by killing
all the married women in the world, or wipe out police brutality by allowing cops to shoot
suspects on sight.

These examples show the utter insanity of suggesting
that a nation can prevent harm to its children by encouraging their mothers to kill them.
For proof, consider the fact that child abuse has skyrocketed since abortion was
legalized, a reality that pro-choicers seem to conveniently ignore.

What none of us can ignore is that we have killed 34
million babies since the legalization of abortion, and child abuse is higher than ever.
Kind of makes you wonder why we killed all those babies. Why don't we kill a few million
more and see what happens? Who knows, if we kill enough it just might work. One day.

Letter 266

Pro-choicers have said that pro-lifers "never
give a thought to the children who will be abused if women lose the right to bear only
loved and wanted children."

Child psychologist and psychiatrist Dr. Philip Ney's
comments on this notion were published in Child Psychiatry and Human Development (Spring
1983). He said that, in Canada, "You used to hear, There should be abortions,
because we don't want unwanted children.' You don't hear that any more. I think we've
pretty well nailed the lid on the coffin of that silly thing. There is absolutely no
evidence that abortion provided virtually on demand has done anything to improve the rate
of child abuse and neglect. The best evidence shows that it increases the rate of child
abuse and neglect." He also said that the evidence linking abortion to child abuse
"is strong enough to make you really concerned. It is as strong as the early evidence
linking cigarettes and cancer."

So, over 20 years ago, we had a theory that abortion
would reduce child abuse. Since abortion was legalized, child abuse has skyrocketed. And
we have research showing that it is probably not a coincidence--that abortion contributes
to child abuse.

I'd say the abortion-as-a-cure-for-child-abuse
experiment was an utter failure.

Letter 267

Pro-choicers have said that pro-lifers "never
give a thought to the children who will be abused if women lose the right to bear only
loved and wanted children."

Dr. Philip Ney is a psychiatrist and child
psychologist who became alarmed at the growing incidence of child abuse. He did a factor
analysis to discover what might be contributing to the problem. He discovered that one
factor in the lives of children was linked to the increase in abuse: their mothers had
undergone elective abortions.

Ney has spent two decades since then studying the
dynamics of the link between abortion and child abuse. The factors he believes are at work
include suppressing the mother's instinct to protect her children, eroding the taboo
against harming the defenseless, causing dissent between the parents due to the man's
helplessness in the abortion situation, and maternal guilt or depression from the
abortion.

Ney has said, "I am not anti-abortion...If
anybody would like to demonstrate that abortion is therapeutic, I will do it. I have said
that now for over 15 years, and nobody has challenged me. You would think somebody would
say, All right--here are the indications: you do it.' The fact of the matter, of
course, is that there is no reliable evidence that abortion is good for anything."

If it's not therapeutic for the mother, and it
increases child abuse--why are we doing it?

Letter 287

In Saturday's editorial, a pro-choicer said,
"Right-to-lifers claim to be pro-family, but they never consider the strain an
unwanted child places on a family."

First, this pro-choicer makes the absurd assumption
that an unplanned pregnancy means an unwanted child. I think if we thought about our own
family and friends, we'd realize that most of us started our lives as unplanned
pregnancies. Not all of us made life unbearable for our families.

Second, if aborting unplanned pregnancies reduced
strain on families, wouldn't families be stronger after more than 20 years of unfettered
abortion? You would think that killing over 30 million unwanted children would have ended
divorce and child abuse. Instead, the divorce rate and child abuse have skyrocketed. Did
we kill the wrong 30 million, or wasn't 30 million enough?

Abortion advocates seem unwilling to accept reality:
killing a child puts more of a strain on the family than letting one live. After all, as
Robert Frost said, "Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to
take you in." Abortion changes the meaning of "home" to "the place
where, if they don't want you around, they can always kill you." How secure can a
child be when he knows his family already killed his baby brother or sister?

A family used to be the people you stood by through
thick and thin. Abortion redefines family as "those people you feel like dealing
with." How that can make families stronger is a mystery to me.

Letter 288

In her letter yesterday, a pro-choicer accused
pro-lifers of being "insensitive to the strain an unwanted child places on the
family."

Even if an "unwanted" child was a strain
on the family, does that justify killing him?

One Arizona couple faced eviction from their home
because of the woman's son. Neighbors said he was "always wrecking stuff" and
"zapping pigeons with a BB gun." Clearly he was more than just a strain on his
family--he was ruining their lives. So the couple made a painful decision. But their plan
went awry when the hit man they tried to hire turned out to be an undercover cop.

Why is it okay to kill a child because you think you
might not want him, but not okay to kill a child that you know is ruining your life?

Pro-choicers might point out that the troublesome
son was 20 years old. But that isn't relevant. After all, he was obviously dependent on
them. The pro-choice argument is that mothers should be allowed to say when life begins.
Maybe this guy's mom believes that life begins when you get a job and move out. Who are
pro-choicers to judge her, or to tell her how to live her life? She and her husband at
least gave the kid a chance to live for 20 years. The family that aborts doesn't even
bother to meet the child and see if they like him or not.

Unless pro-choicers are willing to excuse people for
killing their born children who terrorize the neighborhood, they shouldn't ask us to
excuse people for killing a kid who had harmed no one.